Russian stealth fighter Su-75 Checkmate gets new configuration

[harpy1]

You never know the su75 looks good but India is throwing everything at LCA/Amca right now
What little money is left will go on Rafales and Mki upgrades

Unless India cancels Amca next five years I see no checkmate in Indian colours .
Even if Amca cancelled I think India will go with euro fifth generation fighters first like french FCAV or Tempest
Russia would have to do great things to tempt Indian market and money

 

[Harbyharb]

Why posting this here? It has no relevance to the Su-75 and won‘t materialise anyway. The Russian carrier aviation is dead and that’s a fact.

I personally think the need for off-shore power projection still exists for Russia and they will pursue a ~50k ton medium carrier/amphib assault vessel, their influence and interest in Africa and the Middle East still mandates such capabilities.

As for this new config for the Su-75, compared to the previous tailless design inspired by MiG 1.42 that likely promised drag and weight reduction, opted for trailing edge extension similar to the improvements between MiG izd. 9.13 - 9.41, which provided sub and transonic performance improvement, on top of likely providing additional masking for the EM and EO signatures of the rear fuselage section.

Su-75's main munitions bay should be ~14 inches in diameter and ~7m in length, suggested by the use of Kh-23-inspired weaponry including Kh-58USHK, GROM-E1, etc. This means the Su-75 is more tuned for a strike-oriented, large ordnance small/medium internal fuel payload instead of an American/Chinese style, OCA/Air superiority oriented, small ordnance large internal fuel payload (quite ideal for power projection carrier op).

In terms of what this might mean for India, I mean... as sketchy as the Su-75 is, it has at least come a long way incorporating technical and design experience dating back as far as the LFI S-21, much more than whatever the AMCA is supposed to be.

 

[SolarWarden]

F22 is the queen and will be for a long time- in its role it still outclasses the F-35! And the F22 is an absolute beaut.

Whay are you the way you are? F-35 is not outclassed by the F-22. Now the F-22 maybe faster fly a bit higher but that is all she has over the F-35. F-35 always sees the F-22 first and F-35's EW is much better. F-22 pilots are getting shot down by F-35 aggressors at BVR.

 

[GoMig-21]

Why posting this here? It has no relevance to the Su-75 and won‘t materialise anyway. The Russian carrier aviation is dead and that’s a fact.

I posted it here for 2 reasons:

1) I figured with such a beastly carrier that showed Russia's potential intent to build a naval version of the Su-57 might also open the door for a naval version of the Su-75 which is thread topic, and we're not going to talk about the Checkmate's latest configuration for the entirety of the thread, right? There's only so much technicals we can extract out of that. The topics will most certainly deviate into different but related topics which IMO always makes for a much more interesting discussion instead of following rigid & strict forum-based topic rules. Some flexibility in deviation should be permitted to keep the discussion interesting.

2) Besides, I opened the gaddam thread so I figured I would have a little leeway here and there man, what the heck Deino! lol

I also didn't know at the time that it was a concept from 2015 and it's been essentially scrapped. But I liked the idea that it was also an icebreaker. That just screams that old Soviet ruggedness design concepts which I think many of us are big fans of.

But the fact that the Checkmate is a single-engine platform is probably why it might not get a chance to become a naval variant which is too bad. And while the F-35 has proven to be a viable single-engines carrier-based stealth fighter and can carry massive amounts of internal fuel means the Checkmate should have an equally same chance.

 

[Harbyharb]

But the fact that the Checkmate is a single-engine platform is probably why it might not get a chance to become a naval variant which is too bad. And while the F-35 has proven to be a viable single-engines carrier-based stealth fighter and can carry massive amounts of internal fuel means the Checkmate should have an equally same chance.

The idea that single-engine fighters would not have a chance on the carrier is a long-touted myth that should be dispelled. Ever since the 50s, jets like the F-8 Crusader have already proved that jet engines have reached sufficient maturity for single-engine carrier jets to be viable. On top of this, the existence of flat-spinning F-14s is enough proof that just because a jet employs twin-engine layouts is no guarantee of redundancy. The viability of carrier fighter designs should be viewed on a case-to-case basis, from structural design, and aerodynamic features, to manufacturer experience in naval aviation, with whether single or twin-engine layouts being a consideration, but not a definitive one.

The Checkmate is a far more likely carrier aviation option than the Su-57, due to the Felon suffering the same issue as the T-10K platform as an oversized, overweight vehicle that would significantly dig into sortie rates, with large wing spans and wing loading stress that demands significant weight increase for structural reinforcement for carrier use.

If the Checkmate eventually makes it to production that is. Likely, but by no means guaranteed.

 

[GoMig-21]

The idea that single-engine fighters would not have a chance on the carrier is a long-touted myth that should be dispelled. Ever since the 50s, jets like the F-8 Crusader have already proved that jet engines have reached sufficient maturity for single-engine carrier jets to be viable. On top of this, the existence of flat-spinning F-14s is enough proof that just because a jet employs twin-engine layouts is no guarantee of redundancy.

That's a great point. A pertinent one at that which doesn't get its due as much as the pros of having dual engines, despite many knowing about its dangers enough to include it in Top Gun.

Have we really ever heard of major instances where a fighter jet had lost one of its engines and was able to get back to base safely on one engine which as a result of being off-center, creates copious amounts of yaw that need to be excessively countered with rudder action, making it extremely difficult to do so even with dual vertical stabilizers. Most likely a result of aerodynamic wind-tunnel testing which most likely led to the design of dual stabilizers to be included with dual engines like we saw with the advent of the MiG-25, F-14, MiG-29, F-15, F-18 and so on into other subsequent models.

The Russians might have found out that giving a dual-engine aircraft twin, ALL-movable vertical stabilizers is even more efficient at controlling yaw, particularly during the loss of an engine.

Obviously the pros of dual engines are always exceeding the cons and as a result also contribute to the greater need of dual engines fighters for the navy. But if anything should dispell that myth is the F-35. Problem is, not just anyone can build what is know to solve that problem in the P&W F135.

And pump them out at this high level and with power, efficiency, reliability, maintainability and longevity.

The viability of carrier fighter designs should be viewed on a case-to-case basis, from structural design, and aerodynamic features, to manufacturer experience in naval aviation, with whether single or twin-engine layouts being a consideration, but not a definitive one.

Totally agree 100%. And who else has done it better than the United States Navy? You got two of the best naval aviation aircraft in the existence of naval aviation between the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the F-35B & C although we do still need to see more of the latter two, I think it's safe enough to say that they'll be smashing successes.

Even the efficiency of combining the duties of fighter & ground & AEA attack into a single platform in the Super Hornet/Growler as well as those of the Marines' smaller landing decks and the need for VTOL AC with the F-35B and the C for the Navy & Marines. It's pretty easy to see how the US has integrated designs into useful combinations to manage excess varieties of platforms into a few instead of many. The Russians really are not even close to that level, but it makes you really wonder if they conceptualize it in the same manner with these new stealth platforms or have the ambition/inclination to go in that direction.

The Checkmate is a far more likely carrier aviation option than the Su-57, due to the Felon suffering the same issue as the T-10K platform as an oversized, overweight vehicle that would significantly dig into sortie rates, with large wing spans and wing loading stress that demands significant weight increase for structural reinforcement for carrier use. If the Checkmate eventually makes it to production that is. Likely, but by no means guaranteed.

I admit I hadn't given that much thought, but you make a good point. It is a rather large aircraft which really isn't suitable for carrier ops, which gives credence to your 2nd point of the Checkmate being a more suitable carrier platform. That's exactly why I see it obviously as more of the Russian answer to the F-35 than anything else. Some of the Russian fanboys claim the Su-57 is more of an answer to both, the F-22 & F-35 and while that might be the case to some extent, I think the Checkmate has much more potential to be a concentrated & concerted effort to compete with the F-35.